Clarence wrote:Is there a difference? Or just a different way of translating things?

I don't know how much we can ask here about specific ways of looking at the mind or not, so I will wait with those.

It's my understanding that the Nyingma separate mind, the nature of mind and rigpa. The nature of mind is emptiness whereas rigpa is emptiness, clarity and energy. From what I can tell this differentiation isn't made in in more informal teachings where the discussion is just about sem and rigpa.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal

Clarence wrote:Is there a difference? Or just a different way of translating things?

I don't know how much we can ask here about specific ways of looking at the mind or not, so I will wait with those.

It's my understanding that the Nyingma separate mind, the nature of mind and rigpa. The nature of mind is emptiness whereas rigpa is emptiness, clarity and energy. From what I can tell this differentiation isn't made in in more informal teachings where the discussion is just about sem and rigpa.

Not right, nature of mind is rigpa at least in a Nyingma context. Check out Longchenpa.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

Clarence wrote:Is there a difference? Or just a different way of translating things?

I don't know how much we can ask here about specific ways of looking at the mind or not, so I will wait with those.

It's my understanding that the Nyingma separate mind, the nature of mind and rigpa. The nature of mind is emptiness whereas rigpa is emptiness, clarity and energy. From what I can tell this differentiation isn't made in in more informal teachings where the discussion is just about sem and rigpa.

Not right, nature of mind is rigpa at least in a Nyingma context. Check out Longchenpa.

what about instant presence ? Its a concept which i am not familiar with and about which CNNR talks a lot.

In the teachings i was given we were never told about things like this ,only about ways of looking at the mind and discovering the natural state-rigpa

Instant presence seems to me more like another gate to go trough before you get to rigpa.

But i was never taught this way.I was told more like look into "that" rest and "voila".I seemed more like a two step approach rather than an three step one as in CNNR approach where you are mindfull then you get into instant presence and from this into rigpa.

The distinction between sem and rigpa is not an intellectual idea you know, it is something that becomes increasingly obvious through the direct introduction in Dzogchen. In Mahamudra this distinction is done in gradually on the path and in Dzogchen it is done in the beginning of the path. This is according to my master that teach both.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

Well, maybe we can recreate the subject without the drama? I would be interesting to hear the difference between the two. I vaguely remember there was thread on it on E-sangha, but don't remember the content.

Clarence wrote:Well, maybe we can recreate the subject without the drama? I would be interesting to hear the difference between the two. I vaguely remember there was thread on it on E-sangha, but don't remember the content.

Well Clarence, it might seem like there would be a difference in Dzogchen since they push so hard on the separation of mind and rigpa. So some thinks that the "nature of mind" means the nature of confusion. But in the Dzogchen teachings (the Menagkde) one also say that mind (sem), our thoughts and emotions, is the expression of awareness (rigpa). So if you understand that statement you also understand why one could say that the nature of mind is synonymous with rigpa. However, in practical application Mahamudra practitioners don't separate mind and rigpa from the beginning, but rather let mind and rigpa separate naturally on the path, so from that point of view there could become some confusion saying that the "nature of mind" of a beginner practitioner of Mahamudra and rigpa are the same. But ultimately when you say "nature of mind" you are talking about the result of the practice, the Buddha nature. Ultimately all the Buddhas teachings are pointing to the Buddha nature for this reason they say the Buddhas teachings like a piece of sugar is sweet wherever you taste it. If you want to understand more about this I would suggest that you read Tsele Natsok Rangdrols "Heart of the matter" or if you got a copy his Dzogchen text "Circle of the Sun".

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

heart wrote:But in the Dzogchen teachings (the Menagkde) one also say that mind (sem), our thoughts and emotions, is the expression of awareness (rigpa).

This is misleading.

In Upadesha, mind is variously said to be the mixture of the rtsal energy of vidyā and the karmic vāyus, the vāyu itself, and so on. Mind has a different location in the body than vidyā; different pathways than vidyā, and so on.

Whereas in sems de the nature of the mind is considered to be bodhicitta.

So this question really does depend on what Dzogchen teaching one is discussing it cannot be simplistically reduced to the statement "rigpa is the nature of the mind."